As per the law laid down in S.R.Batra v. Tarun Batra

,/ THE HONOURABLE SMT ]USTICE ]UWADI SRIDEfI IA No. 1 OF 2025 TN CRLRC NO: 805 OF 2025 Between:

1. Smt. Yangala Vidhyalatha, W/o. Yangala Urukunda Swamy 2. Smt. Smriti Yangala , W lo.Shravan 3. Sangala Urukunda Swamy, S/o. Y. Eranna Petitioners/ Respondents (Petitioner in CRLRC 805 OF 2A25 on the flle of High Court) AND

1. The State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. Respondent No.1 2. Smt. Yangala Krishna Sree, Wo. Y. Prakyat, R/o. Flat No. 4-905, Aparna Towers, Kothaguda, Kondapur, Ranga Reddy District. ,,, Respondent No.2/Appellant 3. Yanagala Prakyat,, S/o. Yanagala Urukunda Swamy, Occ. Business, R/o Flat No.301 LIG-876 Sai Nilayam Phase V KPHB Colony Kukatpally Medchal Malkajgiri Telangana. RespondentNo.3/Respond"fij[";:{}r:Hr$Ti . ,, ...Respondents (Respondents in-do-) Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the order dated 30-10-2025 in Criminal Appeal No.204 of 2024 against Crl.M.P.No. 1904 of 2024 in DVC No.40 of 2024 on the file of VI Additional district and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally, pending disposal of CRLRC No.B05 of 2025, on the file of the High Court. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Y. Soma Srinadh Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioners, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the Respondent No.1 and Sri Phanindra Bhargav, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.2 &3. The Court m; cle the following ORDER: This applic;rtion is filed seeking grant of stay of the order dated 30- 10-2Q25 in Crimi ral Appeal No.204 of 2024 against Crl.lVl.P.No.1904 of 2024 in DV(} N(.40 of 2A24 on the file of Vl Additional District and Sessions Judge" Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally. Heard Mr, /.Sorna Srinadh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecrttor for the State- respondent. Learned ce unsel for the petitioner-responden ls submits that the Appellate Court +rrred in allowing the appeal, whereirr the trial Court had rightly held the (rrrohgernent of alternate accommodation in view of the facts of the case and failed to appreciate and note a ny inrpropriety with the trial Court's order and to appreciate the adrnittecl facts by the respondent no.2 before the trial Gourt and allowed ttre same without any reason and adhe rence to the established law. It is further submitted that the Appellate Court failed to note the prejudice Gduserl to lihe petitioner in allowing the rppeal, wherein the petitioner who is a senior citizen is deprived of living in her home, where as the trial Cour:'s order had protected the rights o1 both the parties by allowing for alte rnate accommodation. lt is pertinent here to mention that the appellate Court has disregarded the fact ttrat the protection of women from Do nestic Violence Act is social justice legislation and the right of senior c itizen could not be subordinated by any order from the Act. He further subrnits that the trial Court in ils order has rightly observed that " f the respondenUwife continue to reside in the same house, it will lead to multiplicity of proceedings tetween the parties. However, the g etitio,ner No.1/husband offered ecluivaBent alternative accomrnodation as such, this Court directs the aggrieved party cum wife/respondent to vacate the house", and imposec conditions that the petitioner No.1/husband to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- per month towards rent of the alternative accommodation to the respondenUwife and to pay advance rental amount for three months and also to pay Rs.25,000i- to shift the household articles from the house to the rental house. The petitioner has already complied the conditions imposed by the trial Court order dated 2A.11.2024. He placed reliance on a decision held by High court of Delhi in Tanu Gupta y, Sfafe of NCT of Dethi and others 1, wherein in paras 20, 21, 22it held as-

20. The next question which requires consideration is whether she has an absolute right to continue to reside in this house. ln the case of Satish Chander AhuT'a (Supra), the Apex Court observed thatthe Senior Citizens in the evening of their life are also entitled to live peacefully and not haunted by marital discord between their son and daughter-in-law. While granting relief both in Application under Section 12 or in any civil proceedings, the Court has to draw a balance between the rights of both the parties.

21. While Section 19 of the DV Act recognizes the right of a daughter-in-law to continue to live in the shared household, it is subject to two conditions; frstlyshe cannot be dispossessed except in accordance with law and secondly, she may be provided with an alternate accommodation or the rent for such alternate accommodation.

22. From the bare reading of this Section along with the judgment referred above, it is evident that no absolute right of residence can be claimed by the petitioner. She herself is an educated woman who has done her MBA and is employed with Accenture Solutions Private Limited. lt is not a case where she is helpless or there is any endeavour to leave her on the road by taking away the roof from her head. The learned M.M while maintaining a balance between the rights of the petitioner and the respondents and also being cognizant of the fact that the property is owned by the father-in-law who cannot be made to suffer in his hey days, has directed that alternate Flat in the same colony on rent may be made available to the petitioner and the compliance Report had been sought. The relevant part of the order reads as under: "As per the law laid down in S.R.Batra v. Tarun Batra, (2007) 3 SCC ,69, the property in question cannot be called as shared household as if is admittedly owned by the respondent No.2. However, keeping in view the fact that the complainant had been residing there, respondent No.l is directed to make suitable arrangement for residence of the complainant in any alternate accommodation and pay its rent regularly, if the same is a rented accommodation. Respondent No.1 is directed to file a compliance report to this effect and only thereafler respondent No.2 will be permilled to sell the aforementioned house. Thus, order dated 21,12.2017 stands vacated subject to aforementioned condition." Hence he seeks to grant stay of the order passed by the appellate Court. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, do require detailed examination" '202+ SCC Online Del7307 ln view of t re said circumstances and the deci,;ion relied upon by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant stay of the order dated 30- 10-2025 in Crimi'ral Appeal No.204 of 2024 against Crl.M.P.No.1904 of 2A24 in DVC No,40 af 2024 on the file of Vl Additional District and Sessions Judge, ianga Reddy District at Kukatpally 1i1124,,11"2025. I IrRUE COPY I I SI)i-A.SR.INIVASA REDD,Y'I il ASSISTI\NT REGI.STiCiI. ] SEETT To,

1. The Vl Add tional District and Sessions Judge, Rarga Fteddy District at Kukatpally.

2. Smt. Yangal; r Krishna Sree, Wo. Y. Prakyat, R/o. F at No. A-905, Aparna Towers, Kothaguda, Kondapur, Ranga Reddy District.

3. Yanagala Prekyat,, S/s, Yanagala Urukunda Swamy, ()cc. Business, R/o Flat No.301 LIG-376 Sai Nilayam Phase V KPHB Colory Kukatpally Medchal Malkajgiri Terangana. (for2&3ByRPAD)

4. One CC to SF.l Y.SOMA SRINADH REDDY, Advocate IOUUC] 5. One CC to SE.I PHANINDRA BHARGAV, Advocate [OPU(:] 6. Two CCs to F UBLI(: PROSECUTOR, High Couft at Hyde abad. [OUT] 7. One spare cc py HIGH COUR ' JS, l DATEDiOT.I:..2025 LIST ON 17.;t.1.2025 {' ORDER I.A.No.t of 2025 IN cRLRC.No.8(r5 of 2A25 STAY C o t1 tt\ + Despn {tf' *